Pittelkow, Thomas P.

Pain is one of the most feared symptoms that concern cancer patients and their families. Despite well-established guidelines set forth by the World Health Organization (WHO) on the treatment of cancer pain, nearly half of cancer patients report poorly controlled pain. One of the most serious side effects of systemic oral opioid use is neurotoxicity, which is characterized by altered mental status and systemic neurologic impairments. Treatment strategies are supportive in nature and focused on reducing or changing the offending opioid and correcting any metabolic deficiencies. Herein, we discuss a case of opioid-induced neurotoxicity treated with intrathecal targeted drug delivery (TDD). The timing and implementation of advanced therapies such as intrathecal TDD is not well delineated. More importantly, patients and their oncologic providers are often unaware of this useful tool in treating challenging cancer-associated pain and significantly minimizing systemic opioid side effects. To ensure that patients have comprehensive oncologic care, best-practice guidelines suggest involvement of an interdisciplinary team and coordinated care. Early referral to a pain and palliative specialist may allow for improved patient outcomes and removal of unnecessary barriers to optimal patient care.

AbstractObjectiveThe goal of this study was to determine the frequency and clinical indications associated with implantation of single vs. dual percutaneous lead spinal cord stimulator (SCS) systems and to look further into how these leads are utilized for treatment.Materials and MethodsA retrospective cohort analysis of all patients undergoing SCS implantation between January 2001 and December 2013 with a minimum of 2 years of clinical follow‐up was performed. Number of trial leads and implanted leads was recorded. For patients with dual‐lead systems, it was noted if and when the second lead was used, along with the clinical indication for lead activation.ResultsIn the 259‐patient cohort, 15.8% (n = 41) patients underwent placement of a single‐lead system, 83.0% (n = 215) underwent placement of a dual‐lead system, and 1.2% (n = 3) underwent placement of 3‐lead systems. Placement of dual‐lead systems was similar among all indication groups. Of those patients with a dual‐lead system in place, 88.1% utilized both leads and average time to programming of the second lead was 2.3 months. The most common reason to activate the second lead was inadequate stimulation coverage. Five of the 41 patients with single‐lead systems underwent an additional surgery to implant a second lead due to inadequate stimulation with 1 lead.ConclusionsTo our knowledge this is the first descriptive analysis of the frequency of single‐ and dual‐lead SCS systems. This report indicates that dual‐lead systems are most often placed and both leads are required for optimal patient therapy.